by GR Evans

Should  higher education providers foster a ‘research culture’? As the body responsible for research under the Higher Education and Research Act (2017), UK Research and Innovation offers its own definition. Such a ‘culture’ will encompass ‘the behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes and norms’ of ‘research communities’, influence ‘researchers’ career paths and determine ‘the way that research is conducted and communicated’.  The Royal Society adopts the same wording.

Nevertheless, agreed definition seems elusive. The British Academy points to ‘the impact and value research’ in the humanities and related disciplines ‘can deliver to policy makers and the wider public’. The Wellcome Trust is critical of ‘current practices’, which it says ‘prioritise outputs at almost any cost’ It encourages ‘curiosity-based ideas’, even if they fail to make discoveries. Cambridge University has an Action Research on Research Culture project in collaboration with the University of Edinburgh, Leiden University, Freie Universität Berlin and ETH Zurich, suggesting international reach towards defining such a culture.  A Concordat and Agreements Review (April 2023) formed a joint attempt to define ‘research culture’ initiated by Universities UK, UKRI and Wellcome. It found it was not sure ‘what a positive research culture looks like’ or what ‘research culture framework to adopt’.

Research is a relative newcomer to the work of English universities. Under the Oxford and Cambridge Act (1877). s.15, the  Commissioners who were to  frame new Statutes for each of the two universities were required to ‘have regard to the interests of education, religion, learning and research’. The inclusion of ‘research’ was still a recent arrival in universities. The prompting had come from German universities, whose influence in linking a doctorate with research had rather reluctantly been recognised. Research-based Doctorates of Philosophy began to be awarded in the USA, with Yale leading the way in 1861.

Oxford and Cambridge took note. Reform of their ancient doctorates was called for in any case. The award of doctorates in Divinity had ceased to depend on advanced scholarship, and had often became more or less honorific as new Bishops began to be granted an automatic Doctorate of Divinity. The transatlantic Doctorates of Philosophy were something new because they were expressly intended for award to younger scholars on the basis of a first research exercise. From the end of the nineteenth century Oxford and Cambridge experimented with postgraduate Bachelors degrees awarded on the basis of a piece of original research. Doctorates for young scholars came next and in 1921 Oxford granted its first DPhil and Cambridge its first PhD, both expecting original research. After some debate the existing ancient doctorates became ‘higher ‘doctorates, to be awarded to more senior scholars, normally on the basis of a significant body of published research. In all this lay the beginnings of an academic ‘research culture’, though well into the twentieth century the Fellows of Colleges did not usually have – or seek – doctorates. ‘Vacancies’ for academic jobs commonly express a preference for a candidate to have a postgraduate degree but do not  require  it.

The multiplication of English universities which began in the early nineteenth century was added to considerably from the end of the nineteenth century with the creation of the ‘redbrick’ universities in major cities. It began to be taken for granted that universities would be responsible for research as well as teaching. However when polytechnics became universities under the Further and Higher Education Act in 1992 they preserved contracts mainly concerned with teaching. That has remained the case with UCU’s ‘Post-1992 National Contract’. An institution may choose to add research to the contracts of its own academics. ‘Teaching-only’, ‘Teaching and Scholarship’ and ‘Teaching-focussed’ academic jobs have  become increasingly common.

Some universities now seek to fix the proportions of the time their teaching-and-research academics may spent on research. The private ‘alternative providers’ encouraged by Governments in the first decades of the twenty-first century have rarely made a significant effort to be research-active so far. with the Office for Students mentioning only one actively seeking research-degree-awarding powers. Cuts to contracted research time are threatened with the increasing pressure on university budgets,  Kent for example lowering it from 40% to 20%.

Doctorates continue to proliferate at DPhil/PhD level, but they may no longer require research as formerly understood. With many providers offering ‘Professional’ doctorates, leading for example to a Doctorate in Business, a Doctorate in Education, a Doctorate in Engineering,  the thesis may be replaced partly or wholly by professional experience and study may take place in conjunction with paid work as a required element.

‘Taught’ Masters degrees and even ‘taught doctorates’  have begun to multiply. For ‘Taught Doctorates’, advanced study may involve taught courses rather than, or in addition to, independent research. The ‘taught’ element may involve lectures on or exposition of the skills needed in research, or include elements in the content of the subject of the Doctorate.

Research expands to include ‘innovation’ and ‘knowledge exchange’

The definition of ‘research’ has been expanding to include ‘innovation’ and ‘knowledge exchange’, both now responsibilities of UKRI. ‘Innovate UK’ had its origins in the ‘Lambert’ Review of Business-University Collaboration (2003). This considered the ‘demand for research from business’ alongside the ‘dual support’ system of university funding, with infrastructure funded from the block grant and funding for research projects dependent on grants and the Research Councils. Lambert ‘proposed a number of principles that should be adopted to encourage world-class business research’. This encouraged the view that the ‘originality’ of research could include ‘innovation’.

Governments have actively encouraged ‘Knowledge Exchange’. The Knowledge Exchange Framework is now the responsibility of Research England within UKRI.It embraces a range of modes of ‘exchange’: partnerships involving collaborative research; contract research; consultancy; working with business; ‘continuing professional development’; intellectual property and its commercialisation; public and community engagement; local growth and regeneration, some but not all  having a defined ‘research’ element. In 2020 a Concordat for the advancement of Knowledge Exchange in Higher Education, was prompted in part to ‘deliver the UK Government’s R&D 2.4% target’ and also to ‘tackle challenges such as levelling up prosperity across the country’, as Amanda Solloway, then Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, put  in her Foreword in 2020.

In 2015 the creation of Degree Apprenticeships added a recognised further addition to ‘teaching’ in higher education, offering a form of  ‘professional’ or ‘technical’ research. Providers were to ‘specialise in working with industry and employers’. Their teaching would be: “hands-on and designed to prepare students for their careers. Their knowledge and research drive industry and the public services to innovate, thrive and meet challenges”.

However an apprenticeship is first and foremost an employment. The relationship with the exercise of degree-awarding powers has been found to carry a  heavy ‘regulatory burden’. Providers complain that they are ‘caught up in a tangle of regulation and unnecessary bureaucracy, which is hampering growth and innovation’. Degree apprenticeships have not yet caught on, for these reasons and because they are found to be ‘costly to deliver’.

Funding for them may be uncertain. The Apprenticeship Levy is a tax dating from 2015 and enforced by the  Finance Act (2016). Its operation is one of the responsibilities of the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). It is paid by employers with a pay bill of over £3m, with Government contributing from it to the training costs for small businesses. However the Levy does not fund Degree Apprenticeships.

There have been calls for the Lifelong Loan Entitlement to include degree apprenticeships but the most recent Government Policy Paper (April 2024) embracing Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs) and including ‘modules of technical courses of clear value to employers’, is still working with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) about the possible application of  the LLE when ‘qualifications submitted to the gateway are technical in nature’. There is therefore some way to go before degree apprenticeships can become accepted postgraduate qualifications expressly involving research and with reliable sources of funding.

Funding for an institutional ‘research culture’ goes beyond higher education providers

Taxpayer-funding for universities began to be allocated by the academic-led University Grants Committee (UGC) from 1919. It was to take the form of a block grant, which the recipient university might allocate as it chose. At the end of the twentieth century the UGC was replaced first, briefly, by a single Funding Council and then, under the Further Education and Research Act (1992) by four separate Funding Councils for the nations of the UK, with the Higher Education Funding Council for England taking over the task for England. The new Act stipulated the permitted application of taxpayer funding for higher education between teaching and research, or for the support of either.

Under the Thatcher Government public funding for higher education was reduced, leaving the University Grants Committee less to allocate from the 1980s. (Shattock, 1984; Shattock, 2008) The decision was taken to vary grants for funding according to the research performance of universities. The resulting ‘quality-related’ (QR) research ‘selectivity’ made it necessary to devise measurements of the research results to be rewarded. In 1986 the UGS sought statements from universities on their subject areas by cost, with samples of  five ‘outputs’ from each. Satisfactory research performance came to be shaped largely by measurements of this kind.

A further exercise in ‘research selectivity’ followed in 1989. When the UGC was replaced by the statutory Universities Funding Council, another exercise followed in 1992. Its findings prompted an application for judicial review from the Institute of Dental Surgery alleging that its performance had not been properly measured. The court accepted that the Institute had had independent status for grant purposes under Education Reform Act (1988), s.235(1) and the judgment gave a detailed description of the process which had been followed in arriving at the relatively low rating the Institute was challenging. It faulted the Funding Council for its failure to give reasons for a decision which would affect future funding for the Institute of Dental Surgery.  That prompted some rethinking of the procedure to be used for rating a higher education provider’s research so as to allocate funding selectively.

The Further and Higher Education Act of 1992 replaced the short-lived first single Funding Council with four national statutory funding bodies. The resulting Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) conducted its own Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) every few years,  amending the procedure and requirements each time, with  infrastructure ‘teaching and research’ funding duly allocated on the basis of  its results.

After the exercise of 2001 with its 68 Units of Assessment there was growing concern about the fairness of a method of assessment based on disciplinary or subject ‘units’. The Second Report of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (April 2002) heard evidence to that effect and recommended that HEFCE ‘ensure that its quality assessment does not discourage or disadvantage interdisciplinary research’, arguing that ‘such research offers some of the most fertile ground for innovation and discovery’. That adjustment proved difficult to achieve.

The RAE was replaced in 2014 by the Research Excellence Framework (REF). Costing £246m in 2014, the REF proved to be vastly more expensive than the RAE, which had cost £66m for the 2008 exercise. It was last held in 2021 with Research England in charge instead of HEFCE. It is scheduled to be repeated in 2029.

The ‘Stern’ Report, Building on Success and Learning from Experience: an Independent Review of the Research Excellence Framework (2016), was commissioned to report on the REF of 2014. It recommended simplification of the REF submission requirements for HEIs, and rethinking of the use to be made by Government of the resulting data. It approved of continuing the long-established dual support system, with a non-hypothecated taxpayer-funded block grant dependent on institutional performance and separate project funding to be sought competitively from the Research Councils, charities and other funders.

Stern,arguing that assessment should better recognise the reality of the ways in which academic research was conducted in HEIs, used the expression  ‘research environment’ rather than ‘research culture’. In the light of the problems caused for ‘career choices, progression and morale’ for academic and research staff of selection of individuals for submission it recommended that ‘all research active staff should be returned in the REF’ and that ‘outputs’ should not be ‘portable’ to other institutions. It discouraged the hiring of ‘tall poppies’ to improve an institution’s standing in research and urged that peer review should be made more transparent. Like the RAE the REF has encouraged gaming in the recruitment of researchers. However, the REF added the criterion of ‘impact’, broadly conceived in terms of the benefit an institution’s research brought to the economy and society. That addition began to reshape public policy and  encourage the framing of a concept of an institutional ‘research culture’.

The separation of research from teaching

The ‘block grant’ lasted for nearly a century until the Higher Education and Research Act of 2017 abolished HEFCE and placed teaching and research in different Departments of State, allocating the responsibilities respectively to new bodies, the Office for Students and UK Research and Innovation. In future a much-reduced portion of teaching funding was to be allocated to providers by a new Office for Students, to supplement the income now available from higher undergraduate tuition fees. With the abolition of HEFCE, public infrastructure funding for research (laboratories and libraries) was to be allocated by Research England which was placed within  the new UK Research and Innovation. Project funding was to continue to be sought in the form of grants, including those from Research Councils  which were also moved within UKRI.

Uncertainty about the acceptability of the REF continues despite these radical organisational changes. UKRI published a review of ‘perceptions’ about the exercise of 2021. It found that views were mixed. Among the negatives were the institutional cost and negative effects of repeated measurement and the potential distortion of freedom to pursue an inquiry which might not turn out to improve the institution’s ratings, with damaging funding consequences. The review also had something to say on the effect the REF was felt to have on early career researchers. An international Agreement on reforming research assessment was arrived at in July 2022. This called for assessment to ‘reward the originality of ideas, the professional research conduct, and results beyond the state-of-the-art’.  There were calls for the abolition of the REF in England, or for changes to be made before it was held again.   

Public funding of research beyond higher education

In How we fund higher education providers (May 2023), Research England gives an account of its responsibilities in allocating the taxpayer funding of research. It is not limited to providers of higher education. Research England explains that it can fund  the research and ‘knowledge exchange’ activities not only of higher education providers (HEPs)’ and also ‘other organisations that carry out services in relation to research or knowledge exchange in eligible HEPs’.

Plans for completion of the next REF were deferred to 2029 in response to concerns raised about its content and purpose, in particular how it was to reflect the element of ‘People, Culture and Environment’. It was agreed that a ‘pilot’, still conducted in eight disciplinary areas, would be needed to settle the design of ‘indicators’. This agreement was initiated with the help of Technopolis and CRAC-Vitae (part of the Careers Research & Advisory Centre). Vice-Chancellors and other heads of research-active higher education providers funded by Research England were sent a letter explaining the plan and with a link to current expectations. However there were mixed views about the definition of ‘research culture’.

The need for ‘selectivity’ has continued to require ‘measurement’. This encourages an emphasis  on ‘research activity’ rather than the fostering of the still imperfectly-defined ‘research culture’.

SRHE member GR Evans is Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History in the University of Cambridge.